1980 (3) TMI 266 - HC - Indian Laws

Landlord-Tenant Dispute: Unregistered Sarkhat Admissible as Lease Proof, Res Judicata Plea Rejected

Ram Sewak Jaiswal Versus Abdul Majeed and Ors.

Ram Sewak Jaiswal Versus Abdul Majeed and Ors. - TMI Issues:- Suit for ejectment from a house- Admissibility of Sarkhat as evidence- Res judicata based on a previous judgmentAnalysis:1. The plaintiff filed a second appeal in a suit for ejectment from a house, claiming that the defendants were occupying the house as licensees under the original owner. The main issue was the admissibility and effect of the Sarkhat (rent note) executed by the father of the defendants, establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant. The lower appellate court dismissed the suit, citing the Sarkhat as inadmissible in evidence due to lack of registration, thus raising questions about the landlord-tenant relationship.2. The plaintiff's claim was based on the relationship of landlord and tenant, not solely on property title. The Sarkhat, not being a lease under Section 107 of the T. P. Act, was argued to be admissible as evidence of the lease transaction, even without registration. Reference to Mulla's T. P. Act supported the view that a rent note can establish the relationship between parties, even if not compulsorily registrable.3. The lower appellate court relied on the Supreme Court case of Mst. Kirpal Kaur v. Bachan Singh, deeming the rent note in the present case as compulsorily registrable and inadmissible. However, the court misapplied the decision, as the rent note did not change the nature of possession and was an admission of a tenancy agreement. Another case, Jai Narain Dass v. Smt. Zubeda Khatoon, highlighted that an unregistered rent note could be admissible for collateral purposes, such as determining possession rights.4. The defendant-respondents raised a plea of res judicata based on a previous judgment, which was dismissed by the trial court and not addressed by the lower appellate court. The certified copy of the judgment from a related case was admitted but found to be irrelevant as the issues in the present case were not decided in the previous suit, thus not establishing res judicata.5. With no other points raised, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower appellate court's judgment. The trial court's decree for ejectment of the defendants from the house, recovery of arrears, and future damages was restored with costs throughout, as the findings in favor of the plaintiff were not challenged or disturbed during the appeal process.